New Search
3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment <br /> by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives, <br /> project modifications, or mitigation measures when found to be <br /> feasible. <br /> 4. Disclose to the public the reasons for project approval. <br /> Such an environmental review process would have a timeline, <br /> documentation for public review and would include: <br /> 1. An initial study to identify potential environmental <br /> impacts, focus subsequent environmental review on potentially <br /> significant environmental effects, and provide documentation of <br /> the factual basis for finding that a project has no significant <br /> effect on the environment. <br /> 2. A formal process for citizen and agency comment, <br /> conscientious consideration of citizen and agency concerns, <br /> public review, and preparation of a final environmental report. <br /> Significant effects include, though not limited to: <br /> Conflict with adopted environmental plans; <br /> Demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; <br /> Impact a rare or endangered species or its habitat; <br /> Diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; <br /> Interfere with the migration of fish or wildlife <br /> Breach national, state, or local standards; <br /> Contaminate water supply; <br /> Degrade or deplete ground water; <br /> Disrupt a prehistoric or historic site; <br /> Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; <br /> Increase traffic; <br /> Activities which use large amounts of energy or water; <br /> Use energy or water in a wasteful manner; <br /> Increase ambient noise levels; <br /> Cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation; <br /> Expose people or structures to geologic hazards; <br /> Extend a sewer trunk, line to serve new development; <br /> Disrupt the physical arrangement of a community; <br /> Create a health hazard to people, animals, or plants; <br /> Violate air quality standards; <br /> Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations; <br /> Convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use; <br /> Interfere with emergency response plans; <br /> Significant socioeconomic or fiscal impact; <br /> Significant disparity between economic costs and benefits. <br /> The proposed draft policy recommendations contained in Shaping <br /> Eugene's Future create some pitfalls. Too frequently local <br /> decision makers have used policy as a rationale for physical <br /> actions that are environmentally disastrous. For example, the <br /> rationale for cutting down the heritage trees that were along <br /> - 2 - <br />